[gopher] RFC submission?

[James Mills]

Hi Mateusz,

Interesting view you have :)

I must admit I do kind of feel the same way.
(Bearing in mind that I'm quite new!)

My 2c worth would be that:

a) We use UTF-8 across all of Gopherspace

and

b) We actually simplify the protocol and even remove some item types that
make little to no sense. (e.g: Just one image itemtype)

I do agree however that the RFC *should* be about the protocol and make no
suggestions about what implementations should and shouldn't do.

cheers
James


James Mills / prologic

E: prologic at shortcircuit.net.au
W: prologic.shortcircuit.net.au

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Mateusz Viste <mateusz at viste.fr> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Here is my personal opinion about this (and it's likely yo be my last
> message on this topic).
> I took a quick glance at the piratepad.net/gopher document, and I
> honestly think that it is a) unnecessary and b) quite messy.
>
> a) unnecessary - because I believe that the gopher protocol is very fine
> as it is, and needs no 'improvements'. It's cool, mostly because it's dead
> simple. Would it become any more convoluted, I'd loose interest in it.
> There is maybe one or two things that could be nice to have in gopher, but
> these doesn't require any protocol change (example: 'by default' usage of
> UTF-8 across the gopherspace).
>
> b) quite messy - the document mixes protocol aspects (gopher+ like stuff),
> with client-side pseudo algorithms, with suggestions about how a server
> should be built, and probably other stuff as well (I stopped reading at
> half of the document). An RFC shall describe one thing, and do it
> precisely. The document on piratepad.net looks more like a bag of wishes.
> Also, it describes the usage of some xml-like tags in gopher (title), which
> by itself, is a heresy to me. But anyway, even if said document had any
> resemblance to a serious RFC, I doubt it would be worth using IETF's
> valuable time on this.
>
> To sum up: I think that gopher is mostly fine as it is in it's current
> (RFC 1436) state, with the exception of a few very minor details, that IMO
> do not call for an RFC update anyway. I do not say that the said document
> is worthless - it does address a few good points, but I'd better see this
> incorporated into an updated gopher FAQ, rather than an actual RFC.
>
> Mateusz
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/30/2014 06:12 PM, Nick Matavka wrote:
>
>> Hello, world!
>>
>> I think it might soon be time for submitting the updated Gopher RFC.  In
>> my belief, it should be within a month at most, as we have a very good
>> document authored and edited by some of this mailing list's best minds
>> (i.e. Kim Holviala, Matjaz Viste, Dr Kaiser, etc).
>>
>> But before the RFC is submitted, there are some organisational quirks
>> that need to be fulfilled.  I suppose I *could* submit the draft RFC
>> (available at http://piratepad.net/gopher) as an independent document,
>> but that would only be for informational purposes, rather than putting
>> it on the standards track.
>>
>> I believe that what we currently have is a standard in a formative
>> stage.  This is not simply information, or quirky RFC engineering
>> humour.  This is the new standard for Next-Generation Gopher (call it
>> GopherNG if you like, or Gopher++, I still haven't figured out a decent
>> name for it).  If I send this as an independent submission and credit
>> everyone, it'll never be anything other than simple "information".
>>
>> The better way forward, at least in my view, is to submit it through the
>> usual channels.  This involves more work, some of which I concede that I
>> am not familiar with.  For instance, there will need to be a working
>> group; I propose that this mailing list become one. but it needs a
>> charter and it needs to be listed on the IETF's page, which is the part
>> of the job I'm ignorant of (can't find the link to submit a working
>> group for instance).
>>
>> So I guess you can take this as a request for help.  Has anyone ever
>> been through the IETF's Kafka-esque methods of working yet?  Can you
>> elucidate them for me?  Should this simply be informational maybe?
>>
>> Cordially yours,
>> N. Edward Matavka
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gopher-Project mailing list
> Gopher-Project at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/gopher-project/attachments/20150103/a751ce23/attachment.html>